Rita Arora vs GURMEET SINGH, DIRECTOR

THIS order will dispose of complaints No. C-48/90 and C- 136/91. First we shall deal with complaint No. C- 48/1990. 1. Briefly, the facts are that M/s. Guliver Chit Fund (P) Ltd., is carrying on the business of Chit Fund and Sh. Gurmeet Singh, respondent is its Director. The complainant became a member of Group No. GE/01 and was allotted ticket No. 13. Under the Scheme she was required to pay monthly instalment of Rs. 2,000.00 for a period of 30 months. She paid 27 instalments. Her account, it is alleged, was settled by the Company at Rs. 52,950.00 and a cheque dated 11th December, 1990 for that amount drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajouri Garden was issued in her favour from its account. On presentation the cheque was not honoured by the Bank. Consequently, she has prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,10,000.00 as compensation which includes principal of Rs. 52,950.00 be granted against the company.

THE claim is being contested by the respondent. It was pointed out to us by the respondent''s counsel that in order to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of the State Commission, the amount of claim had been intentionally inflated, which should not have been done. In view of the objection of the respondent we directed Mr. Surinder Chugh, counsel for the complainant to file the break-up of the claim. In compliance with out order he filed the break-up of the claim as detailed below :- From the facts of the case and break-up given by the complainant, it is evident that the complainant deposited with respondent No. 1 Rs. 54,000.00 during a period of 27 months and her claim, according to her version, was settled at Rs. 52,950.00 by it. However, in the complaint she inflated the said amount to Rs. 1,10,500.00by claiming interest at exhorbitant rate and compensation It is to be seen, whether the claimant is entitled to recover this amount into to, even if her version is accepted, or inflated claim has been filed with an intention to bring the claim within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum and Section 17 with the jurisdiction of the State Commission. According to the said sections the District Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed is less than Rs. one lac and the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints, where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceed rupees one lac but does not exceed rupees ten lacs. The Act is very short piece of legislation and gives only salient provisions regarding the procedure to be followed by the Commission. If for certain matters no procedure has been prescribed the Commission can invent a procedure for its guidance.

THIS legislation is a beneficiary piece of legislation and the legislature in order to help the consumers has not prescribed any court fee to be affixed on the complaints. But it is expected from the complainants that they should come before the Commission with clean hands and that the reliefs claimed by them are not inflated. However, it is becoming a tendency to make inflated claims and thus to harass the respondent by filing the case before the State Commission, which may be having place of sitting at a different town. In Civil Courts if excessive claims are made by the plaintiff they have to pay higher court fee and that deters them from making excessive claims. However, in the case of complaints under the Act, there is no much check on the complainants. The result is that in some cases they make frivolous claims in order to exclude the jurisdiction of the District Forum and file the same before the State Commission. THIS tendency of the complainant is required to be curbed. The present complaint is one of that type. According to the complainant she was entitled to a refund of Rs. 52,950.00 on 1st March, 90 but in order to file the complaint before the State Commission she has intentionally inflated the claim and prayed for a decree of Rs. 1,10,500.00. In order to inflate the claim she claimed interest on the amount of Rs. 52,950.00 @ 24% per annum. It has not been shown to us that under any enactment, the interest at that high rate can be claimed. It has also not been shown to us that courts have been allowing interest at such a high rate. In the circumstances, we think that the complainant should not claim interest at the rate of more than 18% before us.

SHE has further claimed Rs. 9,500.00 as legal expenses i.e., Rs. 500.00 for serving of a legal notice on the respondent, Rs. 5,000.00 for filing the present complaint. In our view the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount of legal charges for filing criminal complaint and serving legal notice in this complaint. Regarding the expenses for the complaints the matter is left to the discretion of the court to award the same. Such amount are not made part of the claim. She has further claimed an amount of Rs. 30,000.00 on account of general damages for harassment, mental torture, fraud and cheating. Even if it is assumed that she is entitled to claim general damages in our view the amount of Rs. 30,000.00 claimed in the complaint, where the principle amount is only Rs. 53,000.00, is highly excessive. It appears that in order to make the complaint triable by the State Commission the value of the complaint has been inflated by the complainant. In the circumstance we are not inclined to entertain the complaint on the ground that the amount claimed by the complainant in the complaint is highly inflated. The complainant may file the complaint before the District Forum by claiming reasonable amounts regarding interest and general damages for harassment etc. Case No. C-136/91

BATA India Ltd., Respondent No. 3 is manufacturing shoes and have retail shops at different places. Respondent No. 1 is its retail shop in Connaught Place, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is the Manager of Respondent No. 1. The petitioner purchased a pair of shoes "SENOR" for Rs. 329.95 p. on 9th January, 91, from Respondent No. 1. The respondent gave a guarantee against manufacturing defects of the shoe for a period of six months.

IT is alleged that on 20th March, 91, the upper side of the left foot of the shoe was torn of. He went to the shop and showed to respondent No. 2 the shoe and the damage suffered by him on account of that shoe. Respondent No. 2 not only ignored to see the defect in the shoe and damage caused to him but also abused him. The shoe has not been replaced by the respondent inspite of various requests. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 3,50,000.00 from the respondents as damages. Consequently, it is prayed, that the respondents be directed to replace the defective shoe and pay a sum of Rs. 3,50,000.00 to him towards damages, for unfair trade practice and defamatory language used by them. We have heard the complainant. As already discussed the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain the complaints, is, if the amount of claim is more than rupees one lac.

From the above facts it is evident that the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,50,000.00 in a transaction of Rs. 329.95 p. He has not given the details of the damages suffered by him. He has also not attached the bills of medical charges etc., if any. It is unimaginable that the complainant will suffer damage to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000.00 in this transaction. Atleast he has failed to show prima-facie that he has become entitled to claim damages to the extent of Rs. 3,50,0000.00. The claim in our view is highly imaginary and inflated and it has been made, so that the claim could be filed before the State Commission. Such practice requires to be discouraged.

THE complainant can claim reasonable amount as damages, if he so chooses, and file the complaint before the Competent Forum. Both the complaints are dismissed subject to the above observations. Complaint dismissed.